The Imageshack Problem...

[KiNA]

Originally Posted by Dist

As for uploading .. Well I mostly use Tinypic if I do av/sigs for people. I don't use the sigpic feature either since it reduces the quality of signatures. I host my own stuff like sig/avies at my own server though.

Does [sigpic] tag really reduces the quality even IF the signature is under 50Kb? I doubt so, but then, my gif files are all made to have under 48.8Kb so it never gets reduces.

So before you blame the tag, ensure that the signature are really within limits.. if it is and the signature's quality still get reduced.. lets kill nightwish :x

[Daniel E.]

Originally Posted by DragoZERO

Yes, let's sap AS's bandwidth, haha.

I asked NW about this and was told the following:

People using signatures in galleries shouldn't be a problem. The picture files should be aggressively cached, so the forum doesn't have to send them that often anyway.

[monir]

Originally Posted by felix

http://postimage.org/index.php?um=many

*bookmarked*

Thank you for that link. I was also wondering if there is an alternative to Tinyurl.

[DragoZERO]

Originally Posted by KiNA

Does [sigpic] tag really reduces the quality even IF the signature is under 50Kb? I doubt so, but then, my gif files are all made to have under 48.8Kb so it never gets reduces.

So before you blame the tag, ensure that the signature are really within limits.. if it is and the signature's quality still get reduced.. lets kill nightwish :x

It won't let you upload unless it's under the limit. And it converts everything to .gif. So unless you save it as a .gif, then it reduces it. and .gif sucks most of the time, so yeah.

IS:

AS:

[felix]

Originally Posted by DragoZERO

It won't let you upload unless it's under the limit. And it converts everything to .gif. So unless you save it as a .gif, then it reduces it. and .gif sucks most of the time, so yeah.

IS:

AS:

It doesn't convert anything to gif! it just so happens they were idiots when making the system and gave every file the stupid extension of gif. Same with avatars. It's actually exactly the original filetype; and don't worry browsers don't care (though unless you fix the extension photoshop will ).

Here's a demo, so you know what a gif looks like. First (sigpic one) is PNG-24, second is gif.

[Dist]

Then how do you explain the quality loss if it doesn't convert anything to gif ?

[felix]

God, stupid jpeg format! One sec gonna make a png version.

PNG version


Screenshot from the signature preview


Gif version (maximum quality)


If you don't believe me try it yourself.

[relentlessflame]

Originally Posted by Dist

Then how do you explain the quality loss if it doesn't convert anything to gif ?

In the example you posted at least, there is no quality loss. In fact, the two files are identical with the same file size and CRC32 signature (meaning it's the exact same data, just given a different file name). So if you perceive a quality loss in that case... well, it's just perception.

Perhaps there is a situation where the forum software might try to resize an image if it falls outside of the normal bounds? I'm not sure about that though. If the server did do some adjustment, then any sort of re-compression to a lossy format could cause some artifacting or distortion. But again, I don't know if the forum does such a thing.

[DragoZERO]

Uploaded from jpeg


Uploaded from png


It does do converting, and poorly. So, just remember not to upload png's.

[Dist]

^Yeah that. But if I host a png file elsewhere and link it at AS ; There's no quality loss. PNG > JPEG anyway so unless you fix that, there's no point to use SIGPIC feature.

[felix]

This pretending to be stupid act won't work on me DragoZERO. I know the png you uploaded is 100k+ (and you know it too, since the size indicator when you save is damn hard to miss). Since the jpeg version is close to 50k, and just saving the jpeg version you get a 91k png, the original file will likely be somewhere around 120-150k, forcing the system to re-optimize.

Show me a signature, that's 50,000 bytes or less and png, that gets altered.

[DragoZERO]

Originally Posted by Dist

^Yeah that. But if I host a png file elsewhere and link it at AS ; There's no quality loss. PNG > JPEG anyway so unless you fix that, there's no point to use SIGPIC feature.

So we'll just direct link from somewhere. I think it's better anyway since we won't be using AS's bandwidth.

Originally Posted by felix

This pretending to be stupid act won't work on me DragoZERO. I know the png you uploaded is 100k+ (and you know it too, since the size indicator when you save is damn hard to miss). Since the jpeg version is close to 50k, and just saving the jpeg version you get a 91k png, the original file will likely be somewhere around 120-150k, forcing the system to re-optimize.

Show me a signature, that's 50,000 bytes or less and png, that gets altered.

Stupid act? On you? Don't flatter yourself. I was contributing to the overall discussion and not pointing at you.

And the .png was 80 KB.

[felix]

Originally Posted by DragoZERO

Stupid act? On you? Don't flatter yourself. I was contributing to the overall discussion and not pointing at you.

And the .png was 80 KB.

You're either trolling or don't know how to convert between bytes and kilobytes/kibibytes.

How many KB do you think 50,000 bytes is? I'll give you a hint, it's less then 80.

So we'll just direct link from somewhere. I think it's better anyway since we won't be using AS's bandwidth.

This is not about bandwidth, this is about you spreading misinformation.

Also, let them worry about their bandwidth. The feature is there for everyone to use it. If it's a problem, they can disable it. And FYI you're not downloading the signature each time you see it or load a page—unless your browser's retarded. Also, just because signatures are larger in size (pixel) then avatars doesn't mean they take more bandwidth. Why aren't you worried or complaining about avatars? Didn't you notice, your PNG avatar also has the gif extension.

And also, as a tangent to this topic of bandwidth. Allowing people to host them on outside sources is the reason for the rules being so complicated and also can potentially lead to bandwidth sucking signatures and slow page loads. Lets say you host it on your own site, if you don't set the proper cache headers you're forcing everyone to re-load the stupid thing each time; completely defeating the reason we have these limits to begin with! (people who are on slow connections are usually also on X traffic per month plans)

[SaintessHeart]

Chill out guys. No point fighting over a bandwidth and signature issue like a couple of tsundere catgirls.

[felix]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Chill out guys. No point fighting over a bandwidth and signature issue like a couple of tsundere catgirls.

Only tsun tsun here! You ain't getting any dere dere from me.

[relentlessflame]

So... the moral of this (overly-argued?) story is that if you try to upload a signature image that is larger than the signature limits permitted on this forum, the forum software will automatically convert/re-compress the file so that it falls within the acceptable boundaries, thereby preventing you from getting a nasty warning or infraction from the mods.

As long as you're aware of this limitation, it sounds like a good thing to me, other than the fact that the re-sampling looks pretty awful (so the workaround seems to be: upload a limit-respecting image to start with).

I'm struggling to think of a good reason why anyone should use PNG on a signature anyway. To get it within the required size limit, you'd probably have to do an indexed PNG, in which case you might as well use GIF. The objective is to optimize your signature to be as small as possible in terms of file size while still providing an acceptable level of quality. So if you're trying to use a PNG, you're probably doing it wrong, whether intentionally or not.

(In fact, why would you ever post a PNG here? If you're posting images, you should really use thumbnails, and they should be JPEGs. For large/HQ images, you should really use links so that it isn't loaded in-line (a number of people try to hide large images in spoiler tags, and that's a no-no). So I'm not sure if I can think of any practical use case for a PNG around here.)

Edit: I'm actually recanting my previous statement just a little bit. After years and years, I finally decided to post an avatar, and I made it a PNG-24, specifically to use the transparency effects. I probably could have just made it a plain white, but I prefer to have it sort blend into the background no matter what forum skin you're using (default or blue). The border is similarly at 25% opacity so it isn't a stark black, and isn't hard-coded to the background color. So... I just created my own use case for a PNG, at least for an avatar. I think it'd be pretty hard to do something similar for a signature unless it's really tiny, but the possibility is there. I still think just using PNG to get "lossless quality!" is a bit pointless, but I'll concede that there can be certain use cases where it's needed to achieve certain effects.

[Suomi]

Going back to the original image hosting sites debate I think there are lots of good image hosting sites out there...I use a couple different ones (imageshack, photbucket, flickr,yfrog) for different things and I think that this shouldn't be an extraordinary inconvenience...at least not for me...but just putting a flickr and yfrog and tumblr out there as some good alternatives...

[felix]

Originally Posted by Illusore

imageshack, photbucket, flickr,yfrog

First of all imageshack and yfrog are one and the same; the only difference is URLs are shorter.
Photobucket is a piece of crap service that will alter your images—because they think they know better.
And as for Flicker, it requires registration (bah!) and has a limit of 300mb/month (double bah!). And it requires too many damn steps.

[DragoZERO]

Originally Posted by relentlessflame

So... the moral of this (overly-argued?) story is that if you try to upload a signature image that is larger than the signature limits permitted on this forum, the forum software will automatically convert/re-compress the file so that it falls within the acceptable boundaries, thereby preventing you from getting a nasty warning or infraction from the mods.

As long as you're aware of this limitation, it sounds like a good thing to me, other than the fact that the re-sampling looks pretty awful (so the workaround seems to be: upload a limit-respecting image to start with).

That was what I was trying to illustrate before.

So... ImageShack problem solved?

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by felix

First of all imageshack and yfrog are one and the same; the only difference is URLs are shorter.
Photobucket is a piece of crap service that will alter your images—because they think they know better.
And as for Flicker, it requires registration (bah!) and has a limit of 300mb/month (double bah!). And it requires too many damn steps.

Originally Posted by DragoZERO

That was what I was trying to illustrate before.

So... ImageShack problem solved?

Yeah. Sheathe your claws already before I add you two to the Starcraft 2 fan story with Reck and Archon next month.

There is one thing that baffles me, is why would people want to use PNG on a scrimp-and-save hosting service when they could just use JPEG or GIF.

P.S Illui (can I call you that from now on? That sounds pretty French and ojou and less dark), yfrog IS Imageshack.